President Bush made a war on earmarks a key priority of his State of the Union address Monday night — but Republicans remain paralyzed by internal struggles over how to curb their addiction to spending projects.

Even as Bush called on Congress to cut earmarks in half and announced an executive order cracking down on the projects, Republicans in Congress were sending out a mixed message about what their party really stands for when it comes to pork barrel spending.

In the House, Minority Leader John A. Boehner has called on Democrats to agree to a six-month moratorium on earmarks and new guidelines for approving the spending projects.

Conservatives criticized the idea as too timid and are pushing for GOP members to unilaterally swear off earmarks.

But Republican appropriators — who ultimately dole out the money — complain that even Boehner is going too far.

And Senate Republicans have been hesitant about any significant earmark pledges, whether it’s cutting the total number of projects or backing Bush’s executive order, which would force earmarks to be put in formal bill language rather than nonbinding committee reports.

Senate Appropriations ranking member Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) is not about to embrace a mandatory reduction in earmarks.

“Congress has the sole power under the Constitution to appropriate funds for expenditure by the federal government. I will oppose any measure which in effect transfers this power to the executive branch,” Cochran said in a statement.

“Congress should work with the president to control spending and ensure that federal funds are spent only for lawful and legitimate purposes that serve the public interest.This does not mean that only the president should judge which expenditures meet this test.”

David Hobson (R-Ohio), a senior Republican appropriator, was even more explicit. “I think our guys are searching for a way to get back into the majority,” Hobson said. “It’s kind of an emotional thing they’re trying to do, … it’s a PR move.”

Hobson noted that he was “proud of every earmark” he’s ever put in an appropriations bill in his nine terms in the House.

That kind of reasoning aggravates conservatives, who battled GOP moderates and leaders in recent days over earmark reform ideas.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), who chairs the conservative Republican Study Committee, called the Bush proposal “solid progress” before adding, “I wish he would have done more.”

An aide said Hensarling planned to call on senior Republicans Monday night to refrain from requesting earmarks.

Bush’s proposal – scaled down from his threat to ignore earmarks added outside the committee process – was less than some conservatives wanted.

After watching Republicans suffer through the “Bridge to Nowhere” debacle — a legendary earmark from Alaska Rep. Don Young — and the bribes-for-earmarks scandal of former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, Democrats are scoffing at the new GOP push.

“First of all, Republicans have pulled their punches on earmarks,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). “When we came in, we said we’d cut earmarks in half, and we did. … [Boehner’s proposal] looked like a lukewarm approach.”

Pelosi said Republicans “want to beat a loud drum, but when it comes down to it, they want their earmarks.”

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) also accused Bush of hypocrisy. “When it comes to fiscal responsibility, actions speak louder than words. The number of earmarks exploded under Republican leadership in the House, and for six years President Bush did nothing to slow their growth,” Hoyer said in a statement released by his office.

Last year, House Democrats adopted new transparency rules for members requesting home-state projects.

Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) implemented a moratorium on new earmarks for a continuing resolution to fund the government for 2007, and the committee reduced the overall cost of earmarks by nearly 50 percent in spending bills for 2008, according to a report released by the speaker’s office last Friday.

Indeed, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), the top Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, hardly led the push this past weekend at a GOP retreat as Boehner called for the six-month moratorium.

“It was not his idea,” Lewis spokesman Jim Specht said. “But he certainly discussed this with members of the conference, and he’s going to help enforce” Boehner’s ideas.

One House Republican aide said the party needs to highlight the idea that “this town is messed up and we spend too much. It matters to us, and it polls well internally.

“We’ve got to [crack down on earmarks] ourselves, and then we can use it against Democrats,” the GOP aide said.

Many conservatives at the Republican retreat echoed that line of reasoning, arguing that it was time for the party to present a stark contrast with House Democrats on the spending issue, according to Republicans in the room.

Others, such as Nevada Rep. Jon C. Porter, argued that a unilateral disarmament could hurt GOP candidates on the campaign trail. Porter could face another tough challenge in the fall.

After a muddled close to the meeting, leaders briefly called for a vote on the moratorium proposal before scuttling those plans to discuss the options in more detail.

Later that evening, they settled on a letter to the speaker to lure Democrats into the debate without making their own major sacrifices.

“I wish we would have done more,” Hensarling said.

Politics aside, there’s also a technical problem with Bush’s proposed executive order, according to congressional aides.

For years, earmarks have been placed in committee report language, which is legally nonbinding but provides clear guidance to government agencies for how to dole out money for projects such as bridges, roads and museums.

With Bush’s push to place earmarks in the actual bills, those earmarks would then have the force of law and would severely limit the discretion of agency bureaucrats to move money from one project to another in case of an emergency.

“Because they would be part of the law, if [an agency] needed money for something else, they’d need to come back and get congressional approval,” said one House Republican aide familiar with the appropriations process.

Furthermore, as the office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) points out, Bush’s executive order will essentially have little impact because it won’t go into effect until the fiscal 2009 spending bills — and a new president will take over three months into that fiscal year.

“An executive order for future earmarks is meaningless because he can’t bind a future president,” Reid spokesman Jim Manley said.

Fiscal conservatives seem demoralized by what they see as a half-hearted effort by Bush and other congressional Republicans to cut earmarks and issue executive orders that won’t go into effect until fiscal 2009.

“Congress continues to fail to make the tough choices our country needs. It keeps adding new spending but never cuts the waste,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).

“President Bush has taken some modest steps toward reform, but it will take bold action by Republicans to end the congressional favor factory and restore trust with the American people.”